Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SBOBET

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. There are a number of difficult issues to tackle in this discussion. Firstly, whether SBOBET is a notable company in itself. Secondly, whether the company's recent-acquired status as a sponsor of a (very) notable sports team is an acceptable reason for notability—and therefore an acceptable justification for inclusion on Wikipedia. In both cases, this discussion has failed to produce to a satisfactory extent a consensus on either side: no general agreement seems to exist as to whether this subject is notable or not, both ignoring and taking account of which teams it sponsors. I would feel uncomfortable, therefore, closing this discussion as "Delete" on the basis of a consensus to do so (as none exists), and would feel equally uncomfortable closing as "Keep" as the assumption therein is that consensus here has concluded keeping this article on Wikipedia is justified—again, which it has not. I am defaulting to "No consensus," therefore, without prejudice to re-filing a fresh discussion in the relatively near future in order to re-attempt the evaluation of community consensus on SBOBET's notability.

On a peripheral note, I would encourage all attempts at cleanup to improve the prose and reliable sourcing of this article; complaints on both notes have been consistently raised in the course of this discussion. AGK 21:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SBOBET[edit]

Blatant, linkspam advert whose only claim to notablility is advert text of "leading". basically isn't even any text except linkfarm links and a laundry list shared by literally thousands of similar sites. 2005 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This isn't some fly-by-night operation but West Ham's new shirt sponsor, and their logo will shortly be gracing every beer-belly in east London. Poorly written ≠ non-notable. – iride scent 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you are joking. Being a shirt sponsor is not listed under WP:N! The article is 100% blatant spam and obviously should be speedied, but at afd... it has no relable media mentions, aside from a cursory mention saying it is a shirt sponsor, which again is not one of the WP:N criteria. The only reliable sources are governement ones saying it is licensed, which is not a criteria either. If the poorly written parts of the article were removed it would say SBOBET is a licensed betting company sponsoring a football team. But there would be no sources to say it should be listed in the encyclopedia because of that. If they ever exist, then a non-spammy article can be written. 2005 (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not assert the notability of its subjectMozzie (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not demonstrably notable company. Sponsoring a sports team doesn't automatically establish the notability of the sponsor. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not assert notability, references are very very weak, needs 3rd party coverage detailing more than paid sponsorship. DustyRain (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sponsorship is relevant to the importance. A team like that normally does pick appropriate partners. At least The Times thinks so, and there is evidence it's a major betting firm in its geographic area. Statbrain has it as [1] "126,672 visits per day" with the description " SBOBET is Asia's leading online Sportbook. SBO has a license by the Philippines Authorities to operate as an international sports bookmaker" I consider them a 3rd party RS. I have no experience with this subject, so I am not sure how reliable Inside Bet is considered, but they cover it too, and they are certainly 3rd party in what they say about it, & I see also another less-than-complementary story but which does indicate some importance. that's just from the first 40 ghits. DGG (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The Times shows notability in sports sponsorship. FA match-fixing inquiry hits wall of silence, |FA to investigate match-fixing allegations in game between Norwich and Derby and [FA probes claims that gamblers tried to fix match between Norwich and Derby show that the FA considers SBOBET significant enough in betting to ask for its co-operation in a match-fixing inquiry. The list of bet types and sports could be shortened or eliminated, as it looks rather like advertising and is probably not stable. However that's a reason for editing, not deletion. IMO this AfD request should be closed per WP:SNOW. -- Philcha (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article isn't about sports sponsorship. Two editors have supported keeping the article while posting links that do not meet WP:N, since they either aren't about the subject or are not reliable sources (the review sites review every betting site there is, so obviously they are worthless, otherwise we'd have literally 1000 articles on every minor online sportsbook). The guidelines clearly suggest this should be speedy deleted, but suggesting a snow close when there are Four for delete and Three for keep is pretty puzzling. 2005 (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you miss "the FA considers SBOBET significant enough in betting to ask for its co-operation in a match-fixing inquiry", i.e. the FA thinks SBOBET is notable? --Philcha (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So what? It doesn't matter. The article is not about SBOBET. "Significant" is not our criteria for articles. You should read WP:N and WP:V. Just being "significant" or being mentioned in an article about some larger topic is not a criteria for having an article. 2005 (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Horridly written, but still keepable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.